2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 771

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Shri Krishna, Member (Administrative), Umesh Gajankush, Member (Judicial)
Shyam Lal Meena – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A.No.723/2016

A Constitution Bench judgment declaring an office memorandum illegal restores the previously existing benefit retrospectively, and an applicant is entitled to that benefit for the period during which the illegal memorandum was in force, provided the claim is pursued diligently.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Claim for benefit of concessional passing standard in departmental examination - Constitution of India - Article 335 - DoPT OM dated 23.12.1970 and OM dated 22.07.1997 - Judgment in Rohtas Bhankhar & Others vs. Union of India & Another (Constitution Bench judgment dated 15.07.2014) declaring OM dated 22.07.1997 illegal - Restoration of OM dated 23.12.1970 - Applicant sought declaration as passed in Income-Tax Officer Departmental Qualifying Examination, 1999 with consequential promotion.

(B) Judgments - Retrospective effect - Law declared by a court has retrospective effect unless specifically stated to be prospective - Reliance on P.V. George and Others vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2007) 3 SCC 557.

(C) Delay and Laches - Cause of action arises from the Constitution Bench judgment dated 15.07.2014 - Applicant continuously pursued grievance by filing representations and earlier O.A. - O.A. not barred by delay and laches - Distinction from Union of India & Others vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59.

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a direct recruit Inspector of Income-Tax of the 1992 batch, sought to be declared as passed in the Income-Tax Officer Departmental Qualifying Examination, 1999 with a 5% concessional passing standard available to SC/ST candidates under the DoPT OM dated 23.12.1970. The benefit of the concessional standard was withdrawn by DoPT OM dated 22.07.1997, issued pursuant to the judgment in S. Vinod Kumar vs. Union of India, which was later declared per incuriam by the Constitution Bench in Rohtas Bhankhar (Supra). The Constitution Bench declared the DoPT OM dated 22.07.1997 as illegal and restored the OM dated 23.12.1970. The applicant's representation for this benefit was rejected by the respondents via an order dated 03.06.2016, leading to the filing of the present O.A. The respondents argued that the Departmental Examination Rules, 1998 prohibited concessional standards, and that the relief was barred by delay, laches, and non-joinder of parties.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that the Constitution Bench judgment in Rohtas Bhankhar gave a fresh cause of action, and the applicant was not guilty of delay or laches. It rejected the argument of non-joinder of parties, noting the applicant only sought his own entitlement. The Tribunal found that the Departmental Rules of 1998, based on the now-quashed OM dated 22.07.1997, became illegal. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd Republican Employees Union (WP No.2045/2014, decided on 28.02.2017), which held that the DoPT OM dated 03.10.2000 restored benefits for the period from 22.07.1997 to 03.10.2000. The Tribunal directed the respondents to convene a review DPC, grant the 5% concessional standard, and promote the applicant if otherwise fit, with all consequential benefits.

Issues: (1) Whether the O.A. was barred by delay and laches. (2) Whether the relief would disturb the seniority of other employees. (3) Whether the applicant was entitled to the 5% concessional passing standard for the Income-Tax Officer Departmental Qualifying Examination, 1999 in light of the restored OM dated 23.12.1970.

Ratio Decidendi: The Constitution Bench in Rohtas Bhankhar declared the DoPT OM dated 22.07.1997 illegal, thereby restoring the earlier DoPT OM dated 23.12.1970 which provided a 5% concessional passing standard for SC/ST candidates. The benefit of this restored OM applied to the period between 22.07.1997 and 03.10.2000, and the applicant, having appeared in the 1999 examination, was entitled to be considered with the concessional standard. The jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd Republican Employees Union was binding, confirming that the restoration of benefits applied retrospectively to the period when the illegal OM was in force.

Result: O.A. allowed. Respondents directed to convene a review DPC, grant 5% concession in qualifying marks, and promote the applicant if fit, with all consequential benefits, within 3 months. No order as to costs.